DVDizzy Forum

xxhplinkxx wrote:didnt they recently make a live action musical of princess and the pea?

Yes, it was a TV movie version of the Broadway show, "Once Upon a Mattress".

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:This might be considered an "off-topic rant" but one I thing I've been hearing from "Disney Fundamentalists"(a term I'm stealing from a podcast and using it to describe critics on Rotten Tomatoes people who say stupid things like "Oh Disney has be crap ever since 1992") is saying bring back the Princess films. I have to ask a big solid: why?

How about because in the past, the only princess film Disney made that didn't perform well at the box-office was Sleeping Beauty, which, now a days, has actually seemed to become more popular than Cinderella or Snow White, which both did far better than Sleeping Beauty at the box-office. Just see the list of the top-selling DVDs at Ultimate Disney's shop, which has consistantly kept Sleeping Beauty listed. Meanwhile, Chicken Little may actually be a good film, but the critics and many Disney fans didn't like or even hated it, and a film like that won't make Disney regain it's former glory, as it proved in 2005. The formula for bringing back Disney has been a tried and true method. Snow White started it, Cinderella brought it back when Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi didn't do it, then after a long period of lackluster The Little Mermaid revived it, and continued it with Beauty and the Beast. The only princess film not to bring back Disney was Sleeping Beauty, and that was during a time when Disney didn't need to be brought back in the first place.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:Frankly, I think Disney should try to find completely origial concepts, and not go making buddy films like Pixar has been doing or simply copy concepts from films from the past.

You mean unlike how Chicken Little had a bunch of characters team up for a common goal, took the father-and-son concept from Finding Nemo, and had a smorgasbord of pop-culture references to other already made movies like War of the Worlds?

Disney Duster wrote:the only princess film Disney made that didn't perform well at the box-office was Sleeping Beauty

Hmm... I could have sworn that on the Sleeping Beauty DVD it said that it was the second biggest film of that year. The biggest I think was said to be Ben-Hur

Disney Duster wrote:How about because in the past, the only princess film Disney made that didn't perform well at the box-office was Sleeping Beauty, which, now a days, has actually seemed to become more popular than Cinderella or Snow White, which both did far better than Sleeping Beauty at the box-office.

You mean like the talking animal movies? The Lion King was the biggest grossing out of the fab four. And the films Bambi(which like Sleeping Beauty, wasn't successful at first, but now it's considered a classic), Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians, The Jungle Book etc. were very successful, but that didn't help Brother Bear, in fact, critics dissed that film because it was "too much like The Lion King".

Disney Duster wrote: The formula for bringing back Disney has been a tried and true method. Snow White started it, Cinderella brought it back when Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi didn't do it, then after a long period of lackluster The Little Mermaid revived it, and continued it with Beauty and the Beast. The only princess film not to bring back Disney was Sleeping Beauty, and that was during a time when Disney didn't need to be brought back in the first place.

Well, Pocahontas and Hercules can be considered "prince/princess" movies, and while successful enough, did not bring the company the attention like say Aladdin did. In fact, Tarzan was a different concept and it's the most successful Animated Classic outside of The Lion King.

Disney Duster wrote: You mean unlike how Chicken Little had a bunch of characters team up for a common goal, took the father-and-son concept from Finding Nemo, and had a smorgasbord of pop-culture references to other already made movies like War of the Worlds?

Well, I guess that's fair. But seeing you mention Finding Nemo, well that's not a princess film. How does it's successful explain?

Overall, I'm not saying Rupunzel or any princess film won't be successful or good, I just don't agree we need a string of them back to back to back. Even if Rupunzel beats Titanic, do you think Disney should do nothing but princess films?

You had some really good points, Timon/Pumbaa fan, but I need to clarify some things:

Yes, a lot of movies where the talking animals are the stars are really good and were very successful, but none of them brought Disney out of a slump like a princess film did. In fact, part of the reason Disney made Cinderella was because he figured that audience felt for "a girl in trouble". This just seems to be what always works when Disney's in trouble...financially. The Lion King didn't pull Disney out of any slump, it just continued the success started by The Little Mermaid, which did pull it out of its slump.

Pocahontas has been dubbed a Disney princess, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. It was released around the time Disney was starting to go downhill, but that's not the point. The point is that everytime Disney's been in a slump, a princess film has pulled it out. And anyway, Aladdin was a prince (Ali) and princess (Jasmine) film, waaaaayyyy more than Hercules. I don't see why you called Hercules a prince/princess film at all!

As for Finding Nemo, I only brought that up because the father-and-son relationship in Chicken Little was similar to the one in Finding Nemo, furthering my point that Chicken Little borrowed some things when you said you wanted movies not to copy others.

As for a string of princess films...I actually really don't want that. I'm all for Enchanted and especially Rapunzel, but Disney shouldn't rely on the princes formula for success, otherwise in the future when Disney's in another dark age, critics will say, "Okay, now what fairy tales are left to make a princess film and bring them out of their slump this time?"

It's interesting revisiting these old threads and seeing what people were saying back then. The third trilogy came and went, but what about a fourth trilogy? What do you think the next fairy tale one will be? It seems Disney has left fairy tale adaptations behind and they're now more interested in telling original stories based on mythology (Moana, Raya, Encanto). Too bad Gigantic was cancelled. It could could have been the start of a new one.

Sotiris wrote:It's interesting revisiting these old threads and seeing what people were saying back then. The third trilogy came and went, but what about a fourth trilogy? What do you think the next fairy tale one will be? It seems Disney has left fairy tale adaptations behind and they're now more interested in telling original stories based on mythology (Moana, Raya, Encanto). Too bad Gigantic was cancelled. It could could have been the start of a new one.

Indeed. But regarding the fairy tale triology of the Renaissance is that each fairy tale movie actually followed each other (if you`ll swap the gap between The Little Mermaid and The Resucers Down Under). Which is a departure from Walt`s triology, where there was a huge span between each fairy tale movie. With the Revival era, at least Tangled followed The Princess and the Frog, while there was a span of two movies between Tangled and Frozen. But at least Raya and the Last Dragon will follow Frozen II. And yes, it`s remarkable that most of these upcoming features pretty much seems to be original content. Considering that Disney used to be perceived as synonymous with adapting famous stories (regardless of whether they were fairy tales or not), it seems like Disney have departed themselves from that path.

And yes, I`m still very bummed out that Gigantic was cancelled! And yes, I know that I`m repeating myself about it, but I`m still very bummed out that they couldn`t find a way to save the project or at least give it a new spin!

Disney'll find a way to adapt Jack and the Beanstalk someday.

The only well known fairytales/stories that might fit a full-length feature and Disney hasn't done yet that I can think of are:

• Jack and the Beanstalk
  Little Red Riding Hood
  Rumpelstiltskin
  Hansel and Gretel

Maybe there are more that don't come to my mind. Of course if Disney does decide to do them, they'll probably need to change a lot till the story will be something original that is only loosely inspired on these like Frozen was.

If they found a way to save The Snow Queen after decades of them trying, then there is still hope for Gigantic.

Disney doesn't have to change them to be loosely inspired, they can totally make them very faithful. Tangled was more faithful than Frozen.

Moana should be the third one !

Beacuse i love Moana.

farerb wrote:The only well known fairytales/stories that might fit a full-length feature and Disney hasn't done yet that I can think of are:

• Jack and the Beanstalk
  Little Red Riding Hood
  Rumpelstiltskin
  Hansel and Gretel

Maybe there are more that don't come to my mind. Of course if Disney does decide to do them, they'll probably need to change a lot till the story will be something original that is only loosely inspired on these like Frozen was.

There's also Puss in Boots, for example, or Tom Thumb. But it's true that, though there are hundreds of classic fairy tales, only a few are well known. Although it wasn't very good, Jack the Giant Slayer (the live-action film from 2013) made me realize this story has potential for a full-length feature. I would also like to see Rumpelstiltskin and Puss in Boots being adapted by Disney. But as for the latter, maybe DreamWorks has ruined it for Disney to make their adaptation with their popular version of the title character.

And I agree with you that Disney would probably need to make a lot of changes/add a lot of stuff to those stories because they're either too short (Little Red Riding Hood or Hansel and Gretel) or have important elements in them that are not suitable for today's audiences (Rumpelstiltskin or Puss in Boots).

You're right.
I didn't include Puss in Boots because of the DreamWorks film, just like I don't think Disney will ever do Thumbelina (and I think Tom Thumb might be too similar). I know there was also a Red Riding Hood film but I think it wasn't good and was forgotten.

I agree that Jack and the Beanstalk has the most potential out of these which is why it's so saddening that Gigantic was shelved. Here's hoping they reconsider.

farerb wrote:I didn't include Puss in Boots because of the DreamWorks film, just like I don't think Disney will ever do Thumbelina (and I think Tom Thumb might be too similar). I know there was also a Red Riding Hood film but I think it wasn't good and was forgotten.

The same happens with Swan Lake because of The Swan Princess. Maybe they could've adapted The Nutcracker, though, if not for the live-action film. And yeah, I think that Little Red Riding Hood movie is pretty much forgotten now, so it shouldn't be a problem for Disney if they wanted to make a movie about that story. Regarding Tom Thumb, what's similar to Thumbelina is that both protagonists are very small, but unlike Thumbelina, Tom Thumb is a little kid and his story is completely different. I don't know if it would be interesting enough for a full-length feature, though.

farerb wrote:I agree that Jack and the Beanstalk has the most potential out of these which is why it's so saddening that Gigantic was shelved. Here's hoping they reconsider.

I hope that too.

D82 wrote: Regarding Tom Thumb, what's similar to Thumbelina is that both protagonists are very small, but unlike Thumbelina, Tom Thumb is a little kid and his story is completely different. I don't know if it would be interesting enough for a full-length feature, though.

I've never seen it, but there's this:
The Adventures of Tom Thumb & Thumbelina (2002)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185143/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_21

It's interesting that most of the fairy tales you guys mentioned were pitched or developed as features at one point at Disney: Puss in Boots, You Don't Know Jack About the Beanstalk, Uncle Stiltskin, Hansel and Gretel.

blackcauldron85 wrote:

D82 wrote: Regarding Tom Thumb, what's similar to Thumbelina is that both protagonists are very small, but unlike Thumbelina, Tom Thumb is a little kid and his story is completely different. I don't know if it would be interesting enough for a full-length feature, though.

I've never seen it, but there's this:
The Adventures of Tom Thumb & Thumbelina (2002)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185143/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_21

I hadn't heard of that movie. Combining both fairy tales is an interesting idea. Maybe Disney could've done something like that to expand the story.

Sotiris wrote:It's interesting that most of the fairy tales you guys mentioned were pitched or developed as features at one point at Disney.

Thanks for the links to those cancelled projects! I knew there had been plans to adapt Puss in Boots, but not about the others. I guess that's also part of why I would like to see that tale been turned into a Disney movie; that I was anticipating it for a while after I heard they were working on an adaptation. Also, I had a Puss in Boots storybook when I was a child which I loved. I had one about Rumpelstiltskin too, and that's also why I've always wished Disney would adapt that story as well.

Tom Thumb put with Thumbelina is a bad, un-Disney idea. They never combined one fairy tale with another just to expand their stories for their films.

Disney Duster wrote:Tom Thumb put with Thumbelina is a bad, un-Disney idea. They never combined one fairy tale with another just to expand their stories for their films.

They did it with Lady and the Tramp.